There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[Coreece 190]

On 2/2/2019 at 11:20 PM, billvon said:

On 2/2/2019 at 9:28 PM, Coreece said:

Right, costs primarily due to lawsuits because of their faulty equipment that sparked 17+ major fires recently.  So they file for bankruptcy to cap their liability and will most likely raise prices to cover their losses. 

If the temperatures hadn't been as high as they were, then they would not have had the problems they did.  You can claim that the higher temps had nothing to do with climate change - but you can't credibly claim that higher temperatures didn't drive many of these problems.

Sure, higher temps created many issues, like sagging lines that are more susceptible to line slap due to the typical high winds in these areas.  However there were other issues like faulty utility poles, conductors and connectors.  Maybe some of this was due to line sag as well, maybe not.  The biggest cause of wildfires was due to contact with trees.  Maybe some of these trees died because of drier conditions, maybe not.  Maybe trees just eventually die.

The main thing to realise here is that while PG&E is still liable for issues due to harsh weather, those issues really aren't the reasons why they are under fire.  After investigation, PG&E has been referred to the district attorney for multiple violations of state law.

The Paradise blaze was pretty much the last straw.  Tho the temps were slightly above normal, they were still only in the upper 60s and touched the lower 70s, so line sag shouldn't have been an issue.   The winds were high and the area was extremely dry for that time of year, so PG&E considered shutting down the power, but they opted not to.

Also, PGE has a legal responsibility to clear trees away from their power lines.  In this part of the country there is virtually no precipitation in June, July, August and September,  so It really shouldn't matter that October and November were unseasonably dry, because the trees should've already been removed.  Even if October and November go back to normal, there should've already been measures in place to deal with the typical 4 months of no rain, heavy winds and average temps in the 90s since it's been that way forever in these areas.

Many believe it's our responsibility to clear out these trees as well, not just PGE.   Unfortunately tho, it  seems that all the alarm and meaningless lip service to AGW distracts us from meaningful initiatives that might actually make a difference.

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Coreece

[Coreece 190]

22 hours ago, jakee said:

The problem with your stance here is that it discounts any change in freqency or intensity. The wind has always facilitated wildfires, so that's all there is to it. There are significantly more fires now? Doesn't matter, it's just the wind. The fires are significantly bigger now? Doesn't matter, it's just the wind.

Here's a rather objective article that shows there aren't significantly more fires:

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/09/14/you-may-not-believe-it-but-the-number-of-california-wildfires-has-been-going-down/

"For nearly 40 years, the number of wildfires in California has been declining."

“The claim commonly made in research papers and the media that fire activity is increasing throughout the western USA is certainly an over-statement,”

"The trend of fewer, but not smaller fires is apparent in recent years. State data regarding large wildfires (300 acres or more) from 2000 to 2015 show total numbers – not fire size – has been in decline"

"One reason acreage may be up is from the record winter rains that replenished fuel for fires by spawning plant growth, including the return of grass that had disappeared from wildland areas throughout Southern California during the drought."

"Grass fires tend to burn faster and increase the amount of acres burned, according to a 2008 paper published by UC Merced Sierra Nevada Research Institute’s Anthony Westerling."

“People who have written on it tend to ascribe it to climate change, but I think we are a long way from knowing if that is what is going on,” he said.

I would also add that the extra acres of replenished fuel don't pose an immediate threat, so they are left to burn while fighters focus on more populated areas.

 

Contrast that with this:

http://time.com/4985252/california-wildfires-fires-climate-change/

"Experts say we should continue to expect more extreme fires in California."

"With longer fire seasons and faster-moving, increasingly aggressive wildfires, California can expect much of the same in the coming years."

“These findings are profoundly serious and will continue to guide us as we confront the apocalyptic threat of irreversible climate change,”

 

 

22 hours ago, jakee said:

It's like if a known violent drug gang moved to your town and the murder rate spiked but you say hey, we've always had murders in this town so it's nothing to do with the gang!

Depends where your town is.  If it's a liberal town, then yes, the violent white biker gang and their cocaine is to blame!

If the gang is black or MS-13, then it's those xenophobic gun loving white right wing racists that are to blame!

If your town is conservative, then of course the blame is attributed to the blacks and MS-13, and rightly so. . .

Personally, I think it's that crazy creepy quiet guy that crawled into that condo at end of the cul-de-sac. . .

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Coreece

[Coreece 190]

17 hours ago, gowlerk said:

There is definitely a tendency to over blame climate change for natural disasters. But it is mostly a reaction to the blatant refusal of some people to accept that they have a part in causing climate change

So what, you try to win them over with even more ignorance,  exaggerations, sensationalism, and perhaps even outright lies,  the very things that make them skeptical in the first place?

[DJL 232]

23 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Some climate change deniers like to dismiss the entire the entire concept that humans can influence anything on this planet. That any changes in weather or environment are either exaggerated. Or due entirely to natural factors. That humans can't change anything about such natural courses of events anyway.

To which I submit the Montreal Protocol of 1987, re CFCs.

In the clouds, a silver lining: The ozone layer is on track to fully heal

 

 

It's a good thing that we took the science community's advice regarding the ozone layer.  I've been unable to figure out why the concept of mankind being responsible for and being able to reverse the effects of global warming is so foreign to those who understand very well that we caused and fixed the ozone layer issue.

[Phil1111 913]

5 hours ago, Coreece said:

So what, you try to win them over with even more ignorance,  exaggerations, sensationalism, and perhaps even outright lies,  the very things that make them skeptical in the first place?

I hate to be the one to derail your righteous pulpit. But science is on the side of GW. The deniers, including trump, his fake FOX friends, etc. Are the ignorant and perpetrators of outright lies. Should the science change, then the "ignorant" could be claimed against the GW believers. You got a little carried away with your adjectives.

The "objective" story that you quote above states that the number of large fires is increasing.

"Despite the decline in overall fires, the amount of acres burned by wildfires isn’t following the same trend. In fact, acreage burned by wildfires is doing just the opposite.

“For most ignition sources we have found a decline in the numbers since the 1980s, but not a decline in the area burned,” Keeley said." from your story.

In addition:

"This day started a few years back,” Jennifer Hinckley laughs dryly. Hinckley is a fire and fuels specialist for the Tahoe National Forest. And she does a lot of paperwork: before the first torch even can drip fire on the ground, federal law requires extensive environmental review.

Even with approval, federal wildland managers waited months for the right weather and environmental conditions here. Hinckley says those criteria range from wind speed and temperature, to how much water is in the soil. It was a very wet spring; on-and-off rains created several months of delay here."

Can California Use More Planned Burns To Prevent Catastrophic Wildfires?

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

7 hours ago, richravizza said:

 

...Sierra Nevada had more frequent fires between 800 and 1300 than at any time in the past 3,000 years.

 

 

 

 

You realize that that was the medieval warming period, right? 

A period of several hundred years of warmer than normal temps. 
During which, parts of the Arctic (Greenland in particular) saw large amounts of glaciers melting. The Vikings settled there...Until it got cold again.

Also, there was a very long and harsh drought in North America. That drought was a likely cause of the fall of the Mayan civilization. 

And lots of fires.

[Phil1111 913]

1 minute ago, DJL said:

It's a good thing that we took the science community's advice regarding the ozone layer.  I've been unable to figure out why the concept of mankind being responsible for and being able to reverse the effects of global warming is so foreign to those who understand very well that we caused and fixed the ozone layer issue.

I completely agree. Scientific monitoring of ozone, the accord and the results speak to global efforts to control man-made events. I recognize smaller efforts of trying to rectify events of man-made ecological mistakes.Reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone national park. As an example. Easy to understand and easy to see the intended results.

Co2 and ozone are more difficult for the layperson to quantify.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

8 minutes ago, DJL said:

It's a good thing that we took the science community's advice regarding the ozone layer.  I've been unable to figure out why the concept of mankind being responsible for and being able to reverse the effects of global warming is so foreign to those who understand very well that we caused and fixed the ozone layer issue.

Acid rain too.

I think the biggest reason we understood and took action on both of those was the time frame.

They could show that CFCs were destroying the ozone layer pretty quickly. 
Once CFCs were 'banned' (greatly reduced in reality), the ozone layer repaired itself equally quickly. 

 

The acid rain was quite similar. The effects were dramatic and sudden (on a geological time scale). The science was clear, straightforward and very hard to argue with. Yet many still did. 
And once high sulfur coal was greatly reduced, the acid rain issues greatly diminished and the lakes that were 'killed' restored themselves, mostly anyway. 

AGW is far slower. I don't have to worry about it personally, I'll be dead long before any serious issues come about. 
So why should I have to pay extra or suffer deprivations to mitigate it? 
Which is a very selfish and stupid attitude to have. 

 

Unfortunately, many have that attitude.

And, like so many other issues, our descendants will have to pay the price. 

[gowlerk 1,915]

6 hours ago, Coreece said:

So what, you try to win them over with even more ignorance,  exaggerations, sensationalism, and perhaps even outright lies,  the very things that make them skeptical in the first place?

I agree. Over hyping your argument only hardens your opposition.

[billvon 2,406]

7 hours ago, Coreece said:

Sure, higher temps created many issues, like sagging lines that are more susceptible to line slap due to the typical high winds in these areas. 

Exactly.

Quote

However there were other issues like faulty utility poles, conductors and connectors.  Maybe some of this was due to line sag as well, maybe not.  The biggest cause of wildfires was due to contact with trees.  Maybe some of these trees died because of drier conditions, maybe not.  Maybe trees just eventually die.

That's also right.  Like any such problem, it was not one thing that caused these fires - it was a chain of factors.  The higher temps were merely the last link in the chain.  Break any link and you avoid the problem.

Quote

Also, PGE has a legal responsibility to clear trees away from their power lines.  In this part of the country there is virtually no precipitation in June, July, August and September,  so It really shouldn't matter that October and November were unseasonably dry, because the trees should've already been removed.  Even if October and November go back to normal, there should've already been measures in place to deal with the typical 4 months of no rain, heavy winds and average temps in the 90s since it's been that way forever in these areas.

That's not typical.  Typically you start to see wetter weather in November - but as the climate warms, the fire season extends earlier and later into the year.  That's the new normal.  

So what to do?  A good idea would be to break the chain somewhere else.  Increase distributed generation so that the lines don't carry as much current (=less sag.)  Replace the towers with towers that allow wider conductor spacing.  Go to buried power lines.  Go to HVDC transmission (=less losses so less heating so less sag.)  If you don't do that, and the climate continues to warm, we will see more fires.

Unfortunately, all those things cost money.  And since we have a strong climate change denial movement in the US, such warnings are ignored, and such requests for money are rejected.  Heck, even the president of the US is now a climate change denier, and we have states that are actually passing laws that say we cannot plan for future problems caused by climate change.

And so we see more fires.

[gowlerk 1,915]

56 minutes ago, billvon said:

Also, PGE has a legal responsibility to clear trees away from their power lines.

Quoted from Coreece

This would be the most logical and easiest to implement solution. Fortunately SoCal is close to a ready source of labourers just waiting for work visas to come and take care of it.

[richravizza 25]

11 hours ago, Coreece said:

So what, you try to win them over with even more ignorance,  exaggerations, sensationalism, and perhaps even outright lies,  the very things that make them skeptical in the first place?

BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

4 hours ago, billvon said:

Exactly.

That's also right.  Like any such problem, it was not one thing that caused these fires - it was a chain of factors.  The higher temps were merely the last link in the chain.  Break any link and you avoid the problem.

That's not typical.  Typically you start to see wetter weather in November - but as the climate warms, the fire season extends earlier and later into the year.  That's the new normal.  

So what to do?  A good idea would be to break the chain somewhere else.  Increase distributed generation so that the lines don't carry as much current (=less sag.)  Replace the towers with towers that allow wider conductor spacing.  Go to buried power lines.  Go to HVDC transmission (=less losses so less heating so less sag.)  If you don't do that, and the climate continues to warm, we will see more fires.

Unfortunately, all those things cost money.  And since we have a strong climate change denial movement in the US, such warnings are ignored, and such requests for money are rejected.  Heck, even the president of the US is now a climate change denier, and we have states that are actually passing laws that say we cannot plan for future problems caused by climate change.

And so we see more fires.

 

 So again, around and around we go.Chicken or the Egg  

I posed a question.

If temperatures were 5 degrees cooler and the CO2 content of the Atmospere was 300 ppm lower.

Would we have had a fire? if so, How would the two verialbes effect the outcome?

If AGW was the cause, what was the Man made fire? True, a chain of events, gale force wind, temps, super low humidity, geography, fuel.ect....all, a natural state of the enviroment. Man was the cause of the spark, not AGW.  Its FACT... For Millenia lighting was that spark. 

 "Alarmism seems to be hysterical.. Here's one, my joke of the day. Made me laugh actually."

MNN.com > Earth Matters > Animals

Climate change is turning these cute birds into crazed murderers

A great tit 

BRYAN NELSON 

 

February 2, 2019, 2:43 p.m.

 

"So what, you try to win them over with even more ignorance,  exaggerations, sensationalism, and perhaps even outright lies,  the very things that make them skeptical in the first place?" 

Then lable them as a Denier. Isn't that a reference to Nazis or Islamists, that denied the holocaust? Damn talk about vindictive.

If you want someone to be empathetic and listen, well thats a conversation ender, for sure, and Youll definitely put that person on the defensive.

I'm a sceptic not a denier.

Do I deny yes,I deny the thought process its toxicity the unhealthy psychology, the dose of doom everyday,the dogma,the nillistic veiw of humanity and the purposeful twist of fact on both sides of the debate.

Calling those that disagree, poorly educated,as if a peice of paper, a static picture frame on the wall, is the only gauge of intellegence and the only form of obtaining it,is quite spiteful, some would say its a position of privilage. Add a dose of  Politics into the conversation that only devides us further.

If you listen to a sceptic close enough, most don't think "we have no impact on the  environment' they are skeptical of the amount of impact.

Example; Germany will spend Billion to shutter their coal pants.

I'm all for it. Coal sucks its dirty, full of carcinogen,waste,heavy metals toxic ash True pollution and one of the  largest emitter of Co2 and other GG. 

but what of it?

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/china-coal-fired-power-station-buildup-2018-9

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

and what of the emissions of the fire?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2018-11-30/california-wildfire-emissions-equal-year-of-power-pollution

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by richravizza
fires impact

[richravizza 25]

6 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

You realize that that was the medieval warming period, right? 

A period of several hundred years of warmer than normal temps. 
During which, parts of the Arctic (Greenland in particular) saw large amounts of glaciers melting. The Vikings settled there...Until it got cold again.


And lots of fires.

YES,and not a result of AGW, Im sure you'll agree.

Sounds like a typical Alarmist News cycle, from the 21century.

"Until it got cold again." 
 

[billvon 2,406]

1 hour ago, richravizza said:

 So again, around and around we go.Chicken or the Egg  

I posed a question.

If temperatures were 5 degrees cooler and the CO2 content of the Atmospere was 300 ppm lower.

Would we have had a fire? if so, How would the two verialbes effect the outcome?I

 

Fires would be much less likely.

First off CO2 doesn't matter, other than its effect on the temperature.  So we can ignore it as long as we take temps into account.

Now let's look at temperatures.  This affects sag in two different ways.  One, the temperature itself causes the lines to elongate.  Two, the current through those lines (generally proportional to temperature) causes heating and causes sag.

Now add wind.  The lines now have more sag, and thus come closer to each other as the wind moves them around.  Get them close enough and you have arcing, which causes sparking, which then causes fires if there is vegetation nearby.

Quote

True, a chain of events, gale force wind, temps, super low humidity, geography, fuel.ect....all, a natural state of the enviroment. Man was the cause of the spark, not AGW.

Man put up the powerlines.  Man chose to not shut them down that day, or reduce the power they carried.  Man chose the tower spacing, line tension, and trimming schedules for the trees.  Man caused AGW (note the A in AGW.)  Then nature provided the wind and the trees.

So mostly man's fault - including AGW.  We could have planned for both the temperatures and the winds - but because much of the country is in denial over AGW, we did not.

This will continue as people keep their heads in the sand. 

On the plus side, sales of independent power systems are going up dramatically in Northern California as people start anticipating much more frequent power shutdowns due to liability concerns when temperatures rise.

 

[Coreece 190]

8 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

14 hours ago, Coreece said:

So what, you try to win them over with even more ignorance,  exaggerations, sensationalism, and perhaps even outright lies,  the very things that make them skeptical in the first place?

I hate to be the one to derail your righteous pulpit. But science is on the side of GW.

I wasn't referring to the actual science, I referring to exaggerations about climate change and sensationalism that ignorant people then spread like wild fire in counteractive attempts to win over skeptics, deniers, or whatever label you'd like to use.

 

8 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

The "objective" story that you quote above states that the number of large fires is increasing.

Right, that's why I called it objective.  It objectively, and honestly addressed a variety of factors rather than the typical doom and gloom like the Time article I linked to, which by contrast was single-minded, apocalyptic in nature, and offered very little wrt practical solutions.

 

 

 

[Coreece 190]

8 hours ago, gowlerk said:

14 hours ago, Coreece said:

So what, you try to win them over with even more ignorance,  exaggerations, sensationalism, and perhaps even outright lies,  the very things that make them skeptical in the first place?

I agree. Over hyping your argument only hardens your opposition.

Nicely put.  I knew you'd understand what I was trying to say.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

2 hours ago, richravizza said:

YES,and not a result of AGW, Im sure you'll agree.

Sounds like a typical Alarmist News cycle, from the 21century.

"Until it got cold again." 
 

No. Not AGW. Decreased volcanic activity and increased solar radiation.

So when those natural factors went back to normal, the temps dropped (actually dropped more than normal, resulting in the 'Little Ice Age).

 

Droughts in North America ended, fires decreased. 

 

But the Mayans were still gone. 

 

And while natural cycles are just that, cycles; we are continuing to alter the ecosystem. We are continuing to dump huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Unless that is addressed in some way, the 'natural cycle' will not happen. Warming won't stop. 

Again, this really won't impact me. Real, serious, 'civilization ending' stuff won't happen until long after I'm dead. 

 

Not sure why so many seem to (want to?) think that means it's not real or that they shouldn't care.

[richravizza 25]

4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Not sure why so many seem to (want to?) think that means it's not real or that they shouldn't care.

I don't think there is anyone that simply doesn't care or doesn't want to..{unless the masses make less than$5,000 a year then they have bigger problems}   deep down we are all of motherearth and love her dearly.

Even those dastardly denier oil executives,they have childern and dont you think they look into their childs eyes,and reflect. 

I agree we are "Dumping mass amounts" and AGW is provable, so be it.

Now,dont take this as an attack,its a serious and personal question,   posed to all brave enough.

What are you doing to stop the upcoming apocalypse,heres a list of"life style choices"

#1 Meat   become a Vegetarian 

#2 Large Home with pool ,sell it buy a townhouse, if fortunate enough with community pool

#3 Sell your car buy a bike.

#4 No vacations, air travel, Rv,4wd, quads,ect

#5 Skydiving  

I'll own two but not by choice..?lol

If you have kidds how do you speak to them on this subject?

Edited February 5, 2019 by richravizza
?

[wmw999 2,129]

And those choices are part of a litany of things that individuals can do. Not everyone can do all of them. We have a small house with no pool; we live in a walkable distance to town. We own two cars, but we don’t drive much. We eat beef maybe twice a week, and just about any meat (there are other kinds) in moderation. 

Thats from your list. We have our own, that includes using clothing and passive solar as well as temperature conditioning to stay comfortable. We buy locally-sourced foods, and re-use whenever possible, as well as recycling. We waste very little food.

It’s like people who take part in those clean-the-highway groups. They can’t fix the whole highway, but they can clean up one portion of it, and leave it better than they found it. 

Wendy P. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

11 hours ago, richravizza said:

 

I agree we are "Dumping mass amounts" and AGW is provable, so be it.

Now,dont take this as an attack,its a serious and personal question,  posed to all brave enough.

What are you doing to stop the upcoming apocalypse, here's a list of"life style choices"

 

Well, I have a small house. No pool. No fuel burning 'toys' (boat, atv, ect). 

I have a couple cars, but use my motorcycle & bike to get around when practical (not so much right now). 

I don't do 'long distance' vacations' much.  Weekends down to the DZ, and Summerfest in August is about it. 

 

Much of what I do is somewhat selfish. Using the bike or the motorcycle saves gas over the SUV. No A/C means my electric bill is lower. I have some big trees along my southern property line, so my house is shaded.  Same with keeping my house at 65 in the winter. I put on a sweatshirt, my heat bill is lower. Same with going to LED for all my lights.

Better for the environment, better for my wallet.

 

But I also do a lot of little things. I recycle as much as possible. I recently found a way to recycle plastic film (bags, packaging, shrink wrap, ect). That isn't something that municipal recycling will take. That reduced my garbage by a significant percentage. 

I've used reusable cloth bags at the grocery store for years now. 

No bottled water. I have a couple of good reusable bottles.

Farmer's market for as much as practical in the summer (minimizes transport). 

 

My personal contributions aren't much. But if everyone did these things, the world would be a better place.

Would it be enough? 
I don't know.

I somewhat doubt it. 
But it would help.

[wmw999 2,129]

Even if one doesn't "believe" in things like recycling, remember that eventually many towns are going to run out of landfill space, and it's going to be a crisis until they figure something new out. Really. So putting that crisis off by reducing the amount of trash means longer before the "crisis," and maybe avoiding it entirely, because innovation happens in the meantime.

Wendy P.

[richravizza 25]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

And those choices are part of a litany of things that individuals can do. Not everyone can do all of them. We have a small house with no pool; we live in a walkable distance to town. We own two cars, but we don’t drive much. We eat beef maybe twice a week, and just about any meat (there are other kinds) in moderation. 

Thats from your list. We have our own, that includes using clothing and passive solar as well as temperature conditioning to stay comfortable. We buy locally-sourced foods, and re-use whenever possible, as well as recycling. We waste very little food.

It’s like people who take part in those clean-the-highway groups. They can’t fix the whole highway, but they can clean up one portion of it, and leave it better than they found it. 

Wendy P. 

 

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Even if one doesn't "believe" in things like recycling, remember that eventually many towns are going to run out of landfill space, and it's going to be a crisis until they figure something new out. Really. So putting that crisis off by reducing the amount of trash means longer before the "crisis," and maybe avoiding it entirely, because innovation happens in the meantime.

Wendy P.

Excellent good to see ecology and conservation isn't just a cliche.

I'm fortunate enough to be in a town-home two stories, summer is brutal in the dessert.We use a 110v a/c unit and fans,barely enough to keep use comfortable at 78,the 220v compessor and220v blower needs to kick on only once or twice in the worst of the days.  Parasitic losses can be mitigate by using strips,TV ect. on one, computer on the other and we just flip two The results were amazing we use 1/4 the electricity than our neighbors and even receive rebates for our low consumption.

Someone mentioned ozone and acid rain,and the wolves of our national parks, man can, does, and will effect the environment in the future,that by definition is ecology.

e·col·o·gy

Dictionary result for ecology

/ēˈkäləjē/

noun

 

1. the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.

    

   Yet the the blanket statement, Co2 is the driver of temperature is factually false,

    the debate if allowed, is CO2  the primary driver of temperature seems to be historically inaccurate

   The forcing effect that CO2 has on temp,and amount of temp rise. well that is defiantly the contested part of the

   AGW theory.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

21 hours ago, richravizza said:

I don't think there is anyone that simply doesn't care or doesn't want to..{unless the masses make less than$5,000 a year then they have bigger problems}   deep down we are all of motherearth and love her dearly.

Even those dastardly denier oil executives,they have children and don't you think they look into their child's eyes,and reflect. 

 

Well, the mineral extraction industry has a LOOOOOONG history of very short term thinking.
They go in, take what they can and leave a huge mess. 

 

They've put huge amounts of time, energy and money into climate change denial. 

I'm not sure how that can translate into anything other than 'not caring'. 

It may be that they don't think the effects will be that serious. 

Also, I've know people who absolutely refuse to recycle anything. They have large amounts of family working for Caterpillar. They say 'my family depends on mining equipment being bought. Recycling anything is taking money from their pockets." When asked if they are worried about the environment, they say that the concerns are overblown, it's all a 'liberal plot', or that they simply don't care about that. 

 

So there are some who don't care.

 

And I don't know anyone who understands the science who claims that CO2 is the primary driver of temp change. Water vapor has a much stronger effect. So does methane. 

But, CO2 does have an effect. And it's the thing that is changing the most. And it's changing because we (humans) are dumping huge quantities into the atmosphere. 
So while it's not the 'most powerful' greenhouse gas, it is the one that's the biggest factor in AGW. 

[billvon 2,406]

1 hour ago, richravizza said:

 

Excellent good to see ecology and conservation isn't just a cliche.

I'm fortunate enough to be in a town-home two stories, summer is brutal in the dessert.We use a 110v a/c unit and fans,barely enough to keep use comfortable at 78,the 220v compessor and220v blower needs to kick on only once or twice in the worst of the days.  Parasitic losses can be mitigate by using strips,TV ect. on one, computer on the other and we just flip two The results were amazing we use 1/4 the electricity than our neighbors and even receive rebates for our low consumption.

Yep.  I often get questions from people who want to install solar to power their huge house, and my advice is almost always "efficiency FIRST - then solar if you still want it."  Every $1 you spend on energy efficiency saves you $5 on solar - and ends up with just as much power-company energy saved.

Quote

Yet the the blanket statement, Co2 is the driver of temperature is factually false,

 the debate if allowed, is CO2  the primary driver of temperature seems to be historically inaccurate

The forcing effect that CO2 has on temp,and amount of temp rise. well that is defiantly the contested part of the

AGW theory.

CO2 is just one driver of temperature.  It's not even the strongest greenhouse gas; that honor belongs to water vapor.   Nor are greenhouse gases the only drivers.  Insolation is the biggest factor of all; without insolation the Earth would be at about 4 degrees Kelvin.  Albedo is another one.  If the whole planet was white temperatures would be a lot cooler.

 

However, of the gases whose concentrations we are changing, CO2 is having the most effect - 1.8 watts per square meter of forcing.  The closest runner-up is methane, which comes in at .5 watts per square meter.

[richravizza 25]

On 2/4/2019 at 7:28 PM, richravizza said:

What are you doing to stop the upcoming apocalypse,heres a list of"life style choices"

#1 Meat   become a Vegetarian 

#2 Large Home with pool ,sell it buy a townhouse, if fortunate enough with community pool

#3 Sell your car buy a bike.

#4 No vacations, air travel, Rv,4wd, quads,ect

#5 Skydiving  

I'll own two but not by choice..?lol

If you have kidds how do you speak to them on this subject?

Hey screw the List,after thinking about it, realized its a B.S.virtue signal question ?

 Honestly...If I had the opportunity I'd add one, no two, and more of another. if you get my lift. 

Conservation should have been the subject.

Edited February 6, 2019 by richravizza
typo